I am reposting this here from the original thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?354370-Ron-Paul-Campaign-please-read-How-to-fix-foreign-policy-message.) on Grassroots Central

One of the main reasons we got such a poor result in South Carolina was Ron Paul's golden rule answer to the foreign policy question in the debate.

As someone who can be described as a "hawkish" Ron Paul supporter, I think I can offer a fresh perspective on the foreign policy issue and how to win over other people like me.

This is what Ron Paul said in the debate:

In explaining his take on foreign policy, Congressman Paul told the crowd, “My point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in — in foreign policy.”

“We endlessly bomb . . . these countries and then we wonder — wonder why they get upset with us? And — and yet it — it continues on and on,” said the congressman.

This was understandably followed by boos from the crowd.

These statements are absolutely TERRIBLE in a debate because they are a very clumsy analogy and can be easily misconstrued.

The problem with these statements is that it implies that we go to these foreign countries with bad and malevolent intentions. That we engage ourselves in these conflicts with the sole intent of killing and bombing people, which is of course not true. Innocent civilians dying is just a collateral effect of us being there.

This is not what Ron Paul meant but this is what the audience interpreted from his words and hence the boos.

I understand what Ron Paul was trying to do here. He was trying to psychoanalyze the terrorists or trying to discover the roots of anti-American sentiment in foreign countries, which is all fine probably for a university lecture on colonial studies, but not for a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

Don't blame America. I don't want to hear why an Islamic fanatic hates America. I don't care. I just want to end stupid wars that cannot be won.

This is what Ron Paul should have said:

"As a conservative I believe in a strong national defense, since it is one of the most basic responsibilities of the state.
As a conservative I also believe that every nation should be responsible for its own national defense.

However, during the last decades, politicians in Washington have been running a foreign policy that involves a massive wealth redistribution scheme out of the Department of Defense, sucking our resources and funnelling our troops and military equipment from America to the defense of every nation on the planet.

America is the only country in the world that is not only responsible for its own national defense but for that of every other nation on the planet.

We spend billions of dollars a year running military bases all over Europe, so that European socialists don't have to spend money on their own national defense and they can offer themselves LAVISH SOCIAL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS at the expense of the American taxpayer.

We spend billions of dollars a year on FAILED GEOPOLITICAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS like nation building in foreign countries, so that misguided politicians in Washington can try to "spread democracy around" with disastrous consequences, by just replacing a tyrannical regime by another more brutal and repressive, at a tremendous cost of American lives.

This situation is untenable as it is impoverishing and weakening America beyond belief.
American citizens cannot and should not have to carry the burden of the defense of other countries as that is THEIR responsibility.

As president of the United States of America, I will bring the troops back home and put a stop to this massive socialist scheme, whereby politicians in Washington take our defense ressources and redistribute them around the world.

Under my presidency there will be no more NATIONAL DEFENSE SOCIALISM."

I am 100% sure that if Ron Paul had said what I just wrote down here, he would have gotten a standing ovation from the crowd instead of the boos, and we could have won South Carolina.

Instead of having to constantly defend his foreign policy position, Ron Paul needs to define the foreign policy of the other candidates as NATIONAL DEFENSE SOCIALISM. After this is done, he will paint the other candidates into a corner and THEY will have to defend THEIR foreign policy

End the Fed
End National Defense Socialism
End Failed Geopolitical Social Engineering Experiments in Foreign Countries

I believe this could also easily be turned into a very effective ad as well.

twoggle

01-23-2012, 11:45 PM

Hi! This is a great idea!

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but I might remove words like "geopolitical," "engineering" and "untenable." Not because people cannot understand the words, but it adds a bit to the complexity.

Also, if there can be a sentence that somehow links the federal taxes that are draining each of us personally and taking money away from businesses that might otherwise be used to create jobs, that might be useful because it links it in a personal way to a key issue in this race, the economy.

Mark

Tamasaburo

01-24-2012, 12:40 AM

Good way to frame it. If there are a few things the Republican base can be counted on to hate, they are: European social welfare, socialism in general, subsidies, and idealistic social engineering experiments. I think Paul has had a lot of success comparing the Federal Reserve's control over interest rates to wage and price controls--compare something people don't fully understand to something they do understand and know they don't like. If Paul could frame his opponents' foreign policy views in this way, he could get a lot more mainstream traction.

JJ2

01-24-2012, 01:23 AM

"National Defense Socialism"--that is a great phrase! I hope the campaign is listening.

Feeding the Abscess

01-24-2012, 03:14 AM

We more than tripled our vote percentage in South Carolina compared to 2008, besting both Iowa and New Hampshire.

With very little official campaign apparatus.

If anything, Paul overperformed in South Carolina.

JJ2

01-24-2012, 03:30 PM

We more than tripled our vote percentage in South Carolina compared to 2008, besting both Iowa and New Hampshire.

With very little official campaign apparatus.

If anything, Paul overperformed in South Carolina.

He went down in the polls after the booing incident.

In NH, he outperformed the polls because of his great debate lines, such as "I went!"

IcyPeaceMaker

01-24-2012, 04:21 PM

We are only in these wars because AIPAC has us doing the heavy lifting for Israel's territorial ambitions. Until the agency of that foreign government is made to register as such, we're screwed. They are in league with the Jewish controlled media and fed. Unitl America understands that they are the enemy of the citizens of THIS country, we will continue our trek toward the deep six.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

Many libertarians regard Social Security and Medicare as welfare handouts and as Ponzi schemes, when in fact these programs are a form of private property. People pay for these programs all their working lives, just as they pay premiums for private medical policies and make their deposits into private pension plans. Libertarians are great defenders of private property, so why don’t they defend the elderly’s private property rights in Social Security and Medicare benefits? Social Security and Medicare are contracts that government made with citizens. These contracts are as valid and enforceable as any other contracts. If Social Security and Medicare are in dire trouble, why is the government wasting trillions of dollars in behalf of private armaments industries, a neocon ideology, and Israel’s territorial ambitions? Why isn’t this question the most important issue in the campaign?